I call bullshit

Many have suggested that 2010 G20 Black Bloc violence was initiated by police.

This note is not so much about that, as the lack of sophistication demonstrated by the protestor community about a limp webpage being touted as 'proof' that police committed acts of vandalism while dressed as Black Bloc protesters:
"The Toronto G20 Riot Fraud: Undercover Police engaged in Purposeful Provocation at Tax Payers' Expense" by Terry Burrows.

If the webpage in question is what passes for proof amongst the protester community, have fun with that and I pray that you are never given jury duty.

As added by @robertg366, I shouldn't tar 99% of people for the 1% that might endorse Burrows' article. However, for my one blog countering it, I've seen more webpages quoting it as gospel.

What I find disgusting is how easily people swallow the weak evidence presented as conclusive proof that police led the Black Bloc incidents, then turn it around and announce it online as incontrovertible. Show me the video of a verified undercover cop dressed as a Black Bloc smashing windows or stomping cars, and I'll retract all.

Agent Provocateur
Per Wikipedia, "Traditionally, an agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent(s)") is a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action."

Undercover police
Also per Wikipedia, "Being undercover is disguising one's own identity or using an assumed identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn secret information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gain information or evidence. Traditionally it is a technique employed by law enforcement agencies around the world and a person who works in such a role is commonly referred to as an undercover agent."

1) These points refer to an argument presented here: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19928 entitled "The Toronto G20 Riot Fraud: Undercover Police engaged in Purposeful Provocation at Tax Payers' Expense" by Terry Burrows.


1.1) That undercover police were exposed at the Montebello 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership meetings is conclusive. Damning photos and video forced authorities to admit this.
1.2) Burrows then suggests that he has convincing evidence that undercover police were vandalising a Starbucks and destroying a police car at the 2010 G20 Toronto riot.

1.2.1) Burrows describes one protester as having the 'fit strong body of a trained soldier ... who puts in a lot of time at the gym'. This Black Bloc person is also 'wearing ... specialized equipment on his forearm and possibly his hip'. Burrows also is disappointed the protester's footwear cannot be seen as this supports his subsequent argument.
Here is another photo I found (not Burrows) of the same protester (Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/g20-day-of-protest/article1619712/). So much for the fit, strong, soldier's physique. The 'specialized equipment'? Looks like a shin guard and water bottle to me. Footwear appears to be black running shoes or low tactical boots.

1.2.2) Burrows moves to a new picture, focusing on the footwear of a protester destroying a Starbucks window.

1.2.2.1) He describes a 'very distinctive deep black colour combat boot'. I see a black work shoe. Black is not particularly distinctive. Note that combat boots typically have 8 or 10 laces and rise over the ankle; this shoe is below the ankle. Work shoes and tactical boots can both have rugged soles. I see no evidence of 'some reinforcement of the upper forefoot area', but that's a matter of opinion.

1.2.2.2) He describes 'mismatched socks', and wonders if this is a recognition code for other police. My son mismatches his socks too, so he might be a cop, but at 5 he's a bit short. If this is a code, we surely should see other mismatched sock combinations.

1.2.2.3) He describes a 'nice heavy shiny new belt' as also part of the uniform. I see nothing remarkable about this plain black possibly leather belt. Here's a link to 'police belt' on Google, by the way: http://www.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1I7GGIE_en&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=police+belt&aq=f&aqi=g-sx1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

1.2.2.4) Not particularly convincing in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't convict anyone if I was in a jury faced with this sort of proof.

1.2.3) Burrows moves to a new picture of a man stopping a police car roof.

1.2.3.1) He suggests the stomper is using the 'same brand new distinctive black combat boots' as the protester above. The stomper's boots are described as having 'deep corrugations visible in an enlargement as a scalloping of the front bottom outer edge'. These appear not to be boots, but rather shoes that do not rise above the ankles. The back of the heel is different on both. Note that most shoes with a heavy hiking tread present a broken outer edge.

1.2.4) incidentally, it's been suggested elsewhere by Humberto da Silva from Sindicalista TV (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/28/canadian-cops-histor.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) that the pack "looks remarkably like a tactical backpack, all strapped up". Sure, if you're into Gucci-cam and your idea of toughing it is carrying your school books to college. Go to http://www.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1I7GGIE_en&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=molle+pack&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= to see what real tactical bags look like.

1.2.5) Burrows moves then to link black tactical boots to these two protester pictures and concludes the ''black bloc' provocs and the uniformed armoured police are wearing in Toronto ... the identical government issued combat boots'

1.2.5.1) The proof: 'thick heavy corrugated soles and deep black colour' that are 'brand new and shiny'.

1.2.5.2) here are some riot boots:http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinreis/4743549632; there are lots of boot pictures here http://www.flickr.com/groups/1418026@N24/pool/show.

Riot boots look very different.

1.2.5.4) Check http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/g20-day-of-protest/article1619712/ for lots of other full body pics of Black Bloc protesters. None of the protesters appear to be wearing riot boots; some appear to be wearing tactical boots (that can be purchased from any Marks Work Warehouse, online dealer, or surplus store).

2)a video of an undercover cop running behind a police line on College http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XgEI5dCrE&feature=youtu.be may prove police used undercover cops, but does not prove police damaged property or incited violence. Wearing a disguise doesn't necessarily mean you're leading the charge.

So where's the conclusive proof showing a verified undercover Black Bloc cop bashing a window?

Nowhere I've seen yet...

In any case, this note isn't about Che backpacks, police admission of infiltration of protest groups, or Montebello, unlawful searches or detainment, left or rightwing politics, or larger issues. This is about a weak essay with limp proof being used as evidence of police wrongdoing, and I'm calling bullshit on that essay.